linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU/AMD: Present package as die instead of socket

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170627163152.xcefylri56etqpbn@pd.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:31:52 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Duran, Leo" <leo.duran@....com>
Cc:     'Thomas Gleixner' <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU/AMD: Present package as die instead of socket

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:23:16PM +0000, Duran, Leo wrote:
> My understating is that it is *not* our job at the "amd.c" level to
> return information that influences the scheduler in any prescribed
> way.

Your understanding is wrong.

The abstractions we present to the rest of the kernel is so that other
facilities can operate in generic way without having to know the
processor they're running on.

In your particular case you're trying to address two, AFAIU, scheduling
problems.

So no, we want to tell the scheduler *exactly* what it needs to know.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.